logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.09.24 2015가단9346
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendant C is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs of Defendant Dlim Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. Whether the lawsuit against Defendant C is legitimate or not, the plaintiffs asserted that, in the lawsuit of this case, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of the loan case (hereinafter "the payment order of this case") against the plaintiffs in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2003Guj45987, which is premised on the above, should be denied since they jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligations of KRW 27,00,000 against Defendant C in this case.

In cases where a claim on the title of execution satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignee, the standing of the executive party is changed to the assignee, and the assignee becomes final and conclusive as the assignee according to the degree that the assignee obtains succession execution clause, and thus the executory power of the existing executive title against the transferor is extinguished due to the grant of succession execution clause. Accordingly, a lawsuit of objection raised against the transferor thereafter is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights, by filing a lawsuit against a person who is not qualified as the defendant or seeking

(2) On February 1, 2008, Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 27,000,000 against Defendant C, and applied for payment order under Daejeon District Court Decision 2003 tea45987. The Plaintiff jointly and severally with D and jointly paid KRW 27,00,000 to Defendant C and the amount at the rate of KRW 60% per annum from May 19, 2000 to the day of full payment. The above payment order became final and conclusive on March 4, 2004, Defendant D Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”). After acquiring the claim under the instant payment order from Defendant C, the Plaintiff acquired the claim under the instant execution clause, and the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties to the instant case and the parties to the instant case.

arrow